Over the last half century, harvesting techniques for cotton have lagged behind the typical progression of innovations in this particular farm commodity. While planting and cultivating practices have become efficient enough to successfully plant and cultivate in eight-row, ten-row, and twelve-row patterns, cotton harvesting patterns have largely remained a half-century behind in a four-row pattern. Although some six-row and eight-row cotton harvesting systems are emerging, they are not successful on a large scale. They too typically have the problems common to four-row harvesting systems, e.g., the inability to quickly and efficiently dispose of the loose harvested cotton from harvester enclosures. Cotton in loose form is difficult to store and handle efficiently. Attempts at creating commercially available methods of moving the loose cotton from the harvester enclosures directly to compacted cotton have met with limited success. This bottleneck creates a variety of problems that hinders the speed of harvest and has inadvertently stagnated further development in this particular area.
Harvesters and module builders used today have designs that are not conducive to normal progressive expansion or innovations. Typical present day harvesters remove cotton from the stalk and deposit it in loose form into an onboard enclosure commonly called a basket. This basket has a finite capacity; harvesting must be stopped periodically and the loose cotton conveyed to another machine for compaction. That other machine is commonly called a cotton module builder. The cotton module builder is transportable except during the cotton module-building phase. Normally the module builder is placed outside a cotton field in close proximity to the area being harvested. Conveyance of cotton from the basket is done either directly or by means of yet another mobile transfer receptacle. In present day use, the typical module-building machine is a rectangular box that is open-topped and floorless. Above the box is a compressing ram that traverses the length of the module incrementally compacting the loose cotton deposited from the harvester. Once a module is started it must be finished on that site; causing the harvesters contents to be delivered to one site for a finite period of time. Building modules in this fashion generally results in modules of uneven density. Such modules are more susceptible to breakage during handling and storage than modules of uniform sufficient density. In addition, top-built modules typically require a finishing compaction cycle. The finishing compaction cycle, along with the lime typically required to move and then set up the module builder again, contributes to inefficiency in the harvesting and compaction process.
Other drawbacks shared by typical top-built module builders become evident in the filling cycles of these machines. In order to convey the harvester's contents to the module builder the harvester must be close enough to the module builder, or transfer receptacle, that the harvester does not lose stability in the dumping process. This close proximity to the module builder, or transfer receptacle, impedes the harvester from being equipped with a wide, eight-, ten-, or twelve-row harvest pattern. The harvester's finite enclosure also requires harvesting to be stopped until the enclosure can be emptied. This time delay, along with the time delay in transport of the cotton, and the time delays in the stationary building process presents potential loses to vulnerable cotton crops ready for harvest. The present invention addresses a majority of these problems by giving portability to the module building process offering a cotton producer several options heretofore unavailable.
Although other related art can be found, most has been met with limited success. In one instance, U.S. Pat. No. 4,553,378 to Fachini et al. ('378) discloses an auger screw which limits its ability to produce even module density. The auger mode of compaction could create an over-compaction in the center of the module potentially causing seed damage while under-compacting the module corners. In addition, the '378 patent discloses no means for separating one module from the next. Tearing the module (a means inferable from the '378 disclosure) would likely compromise the structural integrity of the module.
Further examination of this reference calls into question it's ability to construct industry accepted standard size modules because of its on board limitations. Harvesters used today must be able to follow a cotton producers typical end row turning width limitations. For this on board system to build a standard size module, the harvester would have an excessive length that would not typically be able to turn and properly realign for the next pass without loss of harvestable cotton. A typical cotton stripper is approximately 18 feet to 20 feet long. A standard module is 30 feet to 32 feet long. The two combined would be approximately 40 feet to 45 feet long. The typical end row turning space is 25 feet to thirty feet. Proper alignment of the machine would result in approximately 10 feet to 20 feet of un-harvested or poorly harvested cotton—unacceptable to most producers.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,548,131 Mobile Apparatus for the Infield Handling of Fibrous Material to Williams ('131) appears to have several limiting factors. For example, it appears to be limited to a non-continuous mode of operation. The labor in the control cabin required to operate these cycles is also undesirable. Another example is its inability to build a standard size module, i.e., 8 feet wide by 9 feet tall by 30 feet long. The dispersal of fibrous material through what appears to be a horizontally stationary duct system into the bale hopper makes no provisions for even dispersal into an elongated rectangular shape, which is the industry, standard. Very few gins have the capacity to handle cotton in any form except a standard size module. Most modern gins have invested in expensive automatic module feeders for their gin plants.